PHC sets aside conviction in terrorism case

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Monday acquitted two convicts of terrorism charges who had been awarded 14 years sentence each for possessing suicide jackets and arms.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Lal Jan Khattak acquitted the two terror convicts including Mujahid and Noor Gulab after the state lawyer failed to defend the anti-terrorism court judgment and explain the questions which were raised about the conflict in statements of the official witnesses in the case.

During hearing, the convicts’ lawyer, Muhammad Saeed Khan, submitted that as per the first information report, the Counter-Terrorism Department arrested the convicts in Peshawar along with jackets containing 15 hand-grenades, pistols and other material used in bomb blasts. He said that as per the report, the bomb disposal unit defused the explosives.

The lawyer said the Anti-Terrorism Court on February 15, this year awarded them 14 year sentence to each convict in the case, which they challenged in the PHC. He submitted that first the convicts were arrested by a secret agency near Jalozai refugee camp in Nowshera and then charged in the case.

The counsel pointed out that there was a clear conflict in the statements of investigation officer and police constable. He stated that the prosecution only produced two pistols in the court and didn’t provide any proof of the suicide jackets and other materials mentioned in the recovery memo.

The lawyer stated that even the prosecution didn’t record statement of the bomb disposal unit official, who had defused the explosives.  He prayed the court to acquit the convicts of the charges as they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.

On the other hand, Additional Advocate General, Rabnawaz Khan submitted that it had been proved at the trial court that the convicts possessed suicide jackets and explosive materials. He said the recovery was made on the spot.

However, he failed to explain conflict in the statements of official witnesses in the case. He said that some time benefit of conflict in statements of the witnesses were given to the prosecution as they were human beings and they failed to give 100 percent correct statements.